Ukraine War Day #220: By Their Fruits Shall Ye Know Them

Dear Readers:

Yesterday Russian President Putin delivered a rather astonishing speech, in which, as some Russian analysts pointed out, he once and for all burned his bridges with the West.

Down With the Hegemon

“And about time too,” as some people might say. Including myself. Readers can find, I am sure, a decent translation of Putin’s speech into English, so I will not bother to do that. Instead I just want to focus impressionistically (a few brush-strokes, as it were) on a couple of things which caught my ever-suspicious attention. And most of my loyal readers are already aware, I am sure, that my views are often contrarian, idiosyncratic, against the stream, and born of a skeptical and anti-authoritarian foundation. Alas for me! I wish it were otherwise. Happy is the man who fits in nicely.

Over a century ago, Lenin already told us how things work.

To me it was amazing that, at times, Putin sounded just like the man he hates the most: Lenin. When delivering a rather scathing attack against “Anglo-Saxon” imperialism (yes! he actually used the term Anglo-Saxons), and how their ill-gotten gains are based on plunder, piracy, and neo-colonialism. I am pretty sure that Putin never actually read Lenin’s most important book, so I am not sure how he recently acquired this valuable insight which has been known to Marxists for over a century. Maybe just from brutal life experience? The school of hard knocks? Maybe if Putin had spent more time reading Marx and Lenin, and less time reading airy right-wing philosophers like Ilyin. (Whom he quoted.)

More and further: My mouth opened so wide that my teeth fell out and clattered to the floor, when Putin tore into the infamous Belovezh meeting, in which the three main traitors (Yeltsin, Kravchuk, Shushkevych) plotted their treason; and, in a completely unconstitutional manner (as Putin pointed out) dissolved the USSR despite the will of its citizens, as expressed in a referendum.

I mean, this is the man (=Putin) who worked for Yeltsin at the time, still reveres the memory of the treasonous drunkard, and places flowers on his grave. Has Putin finally come to his senses? Will he now order Yeltsin’s stinking corpse to be dug up, burned to ashes, and fired off in a cannon in the general direction of the Anglo-Saxon West?

At Belovezh, the traitors plot…

To be honest, I quite like this Version 2.0 of Putin the anti-imperialist and champion of the oppressed masses of the colonies.

But then he sort of ruined it for me again, by laying into homosexuals and making it clear they are not at all welcome in Putin’s Russia. Which is rather intolerant of him, because I happen to have some gay friends, and even a family member. I know, I know! The Westie LGBT movement has become just another wing of NATO, and so it should be addressed in that format, and condemned as such. But, to my ears, Putin lowered himself by even bringing up this silly issue of genders, and making it equivalent to all the other shit that is going on in the world. If American figure skater Johnny Weir (who used to be a Russophile) feels more comfortable wearing a tutu, that is not exactly at the same level of heinousness as the CIA blowing up the North Stream pipelines.

Tchaikovsky: “But.. but… I’m patriotic too! Just please don’t force me to marry that horrible woman again…”

I mean, it’s just not dignified, in my personal opinion: mentioning gays and genders in the same speech in which he welcomed the peoples of Donbass into the Russian Federation — that would be like Peter the Great lacing his Poltava victory speech, with admonitions against ugly women and their bodices. In other words, Putin should have just left this alone. And leave gays alone too, they are not all unpatriotic traitors, you know. Some of them are, but not all. Unlike your heterosexual mentor Yeltsin, who actually was a traitor.

I can’t recall if it was before, or after, his foray against gays, that Putin quoted Jesus intoning, “By their fruits shall ye know them.” Meaning the Westies. I almost decided to include a silly pun on the word “fruits”, but then I changed my mind. So I will leave that controversial issue alone, but only to point out that Tchaikovsky himself would not be welcome today in Putin’s Russia. And then we would not have all that great music that he wrote. Which would be a tragedy for world culture.

Life Goes On

Okay, so let’s end this political grumbling on a wholesome note. Just yesterday, September 30, was born this day in the city of Donetsk, the first tiny Russian citizen after the reunion of Donetsk with the Russian Federation. [Don’t bother to click on the link below, it’s not the video, just a static screenshot of the video.]

Welcome, little Polina!

The new citizen is a small girl, goes by the name of Polina, who came into the world in the Donetsk maternity hospital, weighing a total of 3350 grams. For my American readers, that’s a little over 7 pounds. Which means, she is big enough, but not a whale.

Mom and baby are said to be doing well. Maybe it is impolite to talk about race, but it looks from the photo like mom/baby are somewhat African. Which should only remind us how ethnic diversity was an integral feature of the former Soviet Union; and how all working people were welcomed, however diverse. (Except for gays, of course.)

In conclusion: a man named Vitaly Khotsenko, who is chairman of the DPR government, sent a congratulatory tweet to the parents and child; expressing his conviction that little Polina will grow up to become a true patriot of Russia.

This entry was posted in Military and War and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

45 Responses to Ukraine War Day #220: By Their Fruits Shall Ye Know Them

  1. Montmorency says:

    Yalensis, there is nothing in Putin’s speech about homosexuals “not being welcomed”. What he talks about, and rightfully so, is the ideological basis that uses so-called lgbt rights to undermine the family as a nucleus of society.
    As to the mom/baby, I watched the video several times and they don’t look African, with the exception of the hairdo.

    Liked by 1 person

    • yalensis says:

      Yeah, maybe not African. Those could be hair extensions!


    • Mark Chapman says:

      Yes, I have to agree; Russia’s official position on homosexual relations has long been one of circumspect acknowledgment without celebration, and this blog’s rallying cry has often been ‘mind your own business!!’ As I have pointed out many times on the issue, homosexuality was a legal behavior in the Soviet Union ten years before the same concession in the United States.

      I would tend to agree Putin did not need to mention it in the same speech which touched on such stirring patriotic themes, but it is a subject that needs mentioning somewhere; the absurd lengths to which the modern west goes to celebrate pronouns and the appearance in drag of people who are obviously men, to the solemn deferral to those people as women would have been universally condemned as disgusting in that same ‘enlightened’ west in the 1960’s, and the hyperinflated importance of sexuality in modern western discourse can certainly not be called progress except by those who are activists for homosexuality. There is nothing at all wrong with quiet and dignified acceptance of a behavior, with the implied understanding that it will not be flaunted as a constant challenge.

      Liked by 2 people

  2. michaeldroy says:

    The Kremlin translation doesn’t seem to be up yet.
    This is the translation of Thursday’s speech on the accession and i presume yesterday’s speech will go up soon.

    The Belovezh Accords were signed in 1991, Putin didn’t leave St Petersburg for Moscow until 1996, he is hardly involved in them.

    There are 3 reasons for this referendum.
    First and most important is to Draw a Line. After this point and the accession into Russia, the Russian border has moved and these regions will be defended as if they were Moscow.

    Second, also v important but not understood well. The referendum reveals the truth. E Ukrainians hate Kiev for good reasons; the bullying, apartheid and murder happen all the time.

    The west believes that Ukraine is largely behind Kiev with a few rebels. They believe that there is no support for Moscow. They believe that Kiev has treated E Ukraine well and that there is no reason for E Ukrainians not to prefer Kiev to Moscow. They believe that the stories of Nazis, bullying, apartheid laws, rapes, and most of all shelling of civilians are entirely fictional. This is shown to be wrong
    “For 8 long years….” Putin makes this point clearly and early in the speech.

    Kiev and pro-war media absolutely hate the referendums for this reason.
    In last few days there were 2 shellings of refugees. They killed about 30 people each.
    One making its way out of Kharkov which Russia blames Ukraine for but western media won’t report on.
    The other in Zaporizhzhia.
    It is being covered but media are sounding very sceptical and being very careful to say Kiev says Russia did this and Kiev says they were travelling away from Russian controlled territory. (We know the traffic all goes the other way).

    Third and least important is to make Russian acts in the region legal. At least in the eyes of Lawyers and “the rest of the world” if not the law breakers of Nato.

    Liked by 3 people

    • michaeldroy says:

      Actually that is the speech – I was imagining a 31st of Sept between today and the 30th.


    • yalensis says:

      Thanks for posting link of the speech translation!

      As for Belovezh, well maybe it is true that Putin was only a very small potato at the time. But his biography shows that he early took Yeltsin’s side against those who attempted to stop Gorbachov-Yeltsin from dismembering the USSR. Those latter were called “hard-liners” and accused of trying to carry out a coup. But the real coup was what Yeltsin and the others did, in my opinion.

      I wonder if Putin wonders now, if he should have taken the other side of that issue and tried to stop the catastrophe that happened.


      • michaeldroy says:

        I’m sure your memory is better than mine.
        But wasn’t most of the Russian population in favour of the break up of the Soviet Union? Weren’t there demonstrations in Moscow to support Lithuanian independence?
        I always thought that Russians were for the break up for the unusual but simple reason that the Soviet empire was about exporting an ideology and subsidising the empire, whereas most Empires are about stealing from the empire.
        On that basis the EU is welcome to have the Balts and rump Ukraine.


  3. S Brennan says:

    Excellent Posting Yalensis and to our discussion on who is the traitor and who is to blame…it’s seems that both you, Putin and I now agree…

    “the three main traitors (Yeltsin, Kravchuk, Shushkevych)”

    It was Yeltsin….NOT Gorbachov!

    Gorbachov was a good man who was too trusting of the [now revealed] neocolonialist [aka neocons] who control the D/R party [singular intended] in the US. But then too so were so many other players.

    To which I add, I too was blindsided by the putsch of all FDRists from the US political system by neocolonialists/globalists, yes it happened first in the R party during the late 60′ and early 70’s and only later in the D party during the late 70’s and early 80’s but here we are. To which I also add, having been forcefully expelled from the D’s there is a growing populist/anti-globalist movement within the R party which Trump tapped into and was/is hated for.


    • yalensis says:

      Gorby was maybe blind and blind-sided. But history still shows that, in his final years, he ran the USSR like a personal despot, made decisions and back-room deals with the imperialist powers; and never even consulted with the Party’s Politburo or Central Committee any more.
      It was this last factor which made many loyal Communists suspicious of him (rightfully so), which is why they eventually got together and tried to overthrow him. But they didn’t succeed. History records that Putin condemned the “putschists” of that time and supported the Yeltsin wing.
      I can help but wonder if he regrets that now.


  4. Yes–I could not agree more with you Yalensis about how inappropriate and bigoted it was for Putin to bring up how LGTBQs are not welcome in Russia and use this cynically as an identity politics wedge issue between the West and Russia. This reflects badly on both sides. Bashing and attacking the ‘woke’ West because it tolerates LGTBQ identified people, or has them in the military has been especially popular by alt-right bloggers such as ‘the saker’ (a complete homophobic bigot); Andrei Martyyanov (never misses a chance to attack LGTBQ in the U.S. military in adolescent homophobic fashion); Larry Johnson; the Duran’s Alex and Alex show; etc. I mean, what do gays or transvestites have to do with the Ukraine war? Nothing.


    • yalensis says:

      Thanks, deschutes, I appreciate that!

      Interestingly enough, I just saw this piece by Evgeny Krutikov. It is a very interesting human interest story, involving espionage; and normally I would probably do a post on it; unfortunately, there is too much other stuff going on right now, and more urgent stories to cover.

      Anyhow, it’s all about this transgender person (male to female), a former Mayor (in the Medics Corps) in the U.S. army named Jamie Lee Henry. After she transferred from man to a woman, she same-sex married a (biological) female named Anna Gabrielian.

      Anna is very pro-Russian (there is speculation that she might be Armenian or have some Russian roots), so this couple desperately wanted to help the Russian side in the Ukrainian war. They foolishly started trying to contact the Russian Embassy, or something like that. Not sure of the details, maybe Jamie thought she had something to offer because of her experience in the army. Anyhow, the American FBI easily intercepted their communications, and set up a sting operation, pretending to be Russians. As a result, Jamie has been arrested and charged with trying to pass American secrets to Russia.

      Krutikov didn’t quite know what to make of this; and the idea that a lesbian and/or transgender could be pro-Russian. It only goes to show, that sometimes a person can have a Russian soul, despite all outward appearances.
      Either that, or blood is thicker than hormones!

      Liked by 1 person

  5. ORTENSIO F says:

    Saludos a todos :

    No lei el discurso con total precision , aunque observo que VVP ya no se muestra tan reactivo y se va acercando al climax-punto optimo de un discurso antisionista-antiglobalista-antioccidental .

    Es decir :

    No observa el conflicto actual en Palestina . No observa la arrogancia mas despiadada que sucede actualmente en , como se puede decir, la Palestina ocupada .

    No observa las mentiras del ” imperio de las mentiras ” Mentiras como el 11S, los alunizajes,el suceso de Dallas 1963, el accidente Liberty, . Sin llegar al Maine, lo cual n o es preciso .

    No se refiere, salvo mejor juicio de ustedes, al WEF , en cuanto promotor de una sociedad digital alternativa .

    No desenmascara la connivencia, unida y urdida por la cumbre financiera, entre establecimiento politico y medios de masas .

    Tal vez para mas adelante, si sucediese, ( mejor que no ) , un discurso preliminar a una contundente declaracion de guerra .

    No encuentro un ataque a la situacion homosexual en Rusia . Por otra parte, no encuentro excesivamente edificante el exhibicionismo heterosexual que alli sucede .
    El pudor en la calle . El amor, sin limites, en casa . O , sin limites, en verano, en medio de las praderas siberianas, o debajo de un castaño, en las orillas del Volga . Quien no tenga fuerza para manifestar su sexo, tanto unos como otros, que se metan en la cama y se queden en casa .

    No encuentro alguna introspección respecto a los errores que se cometieron y que continuan sucediendo en Rusia . Entendedia ello como una demostracion de verdadera fortaleza .


    PD : No olvido los comentarios respecto a F. Lang . Por sus ideas, lo situo a la altura de tres o cuatro directores europeos . Uno sueco, otro danés, otro ruso .
    Tras ellos, y, entendiendo su obra completa, tres o cuatro franceses, tres o cuatro italianos. tres o cuatro rusos ¿ tres o cuatro ingleses ?, tres o cuatro japoneses, tres o cuatro “gringos”, ( dicho con respeto ). Y uno, o dos, o tres español.



    • yalensis says:

      Thanks for comment, ORTENSIO. I like the reminder of Palestine. VVP spoke about Western imperialism in an honest fashion, but he never touched on the key issue of Israeli apartheid.


  6. dingusansich says:

    I concur. For a Westerner sympathetic to Russia the swipe at civil rights came across as a cringeworthy cheap shot, a false note in an otherwise well orchestrated argument. Maybe the “parent no. 1” nonsense meant to scorn the bad bargain of cowardly, corrupt acquiescence in imperialism, up to the impoverishment of entire nations, for a crummy rainbow T-shirt. Maybe it intended to deplore woke intolerance, ironically under the banner of inclusion, for other beliefs and values, not all of which, by the way, are conservative. Maybe it represented an awkward intrusion of pandering to a powerful domestic constituency. Whatever it was, scapegoating is not a good look. It mistakenly suggests a fundamental incompatibility with expressions of pluralism that, when not weaponized for deception and distraction in divide-and-conquer stratagems, can be better understood as an aspect of inevitable—and on the whole benign—tensions in any community not forced into conformity. For an embattled Russian I can understand a pressing felt need for reductive unity to generate and project power. But I consider that assault on difference as such a misstep in an otherwise trenchant and necessary critique.


    • yalensis says:

      Thanks for comment, and I agree with your sentiment. I am thinking in particular of journalist Glenn Greenwald who does an outstanding job exposing Westie lies and misinformation. And yet, within his non-traditional family there is a Parent #1 and Parent #2, what are we supposed to do, hiss and cast stones at them, like medieval witch-hunters?


  7. John Thurloe says:

    Putin repudiates the transgender agenda. A constituency demanding fundamental changes to the social order on the claim of self-determination of individual rights. Central to their campaign is their use of state enforcement powers to prevent those who think otherwise from expressing their opinions. If the matter was left in the public domain for open examination, if the making of public policy was not railroaded as it is now… I don’t hear many voices in the west voicing concern about the right to self-determination of the people in the Donbass.

    Liked by 1 person

    • yalensis says:

      I mean, it should just be a private medical procedure, in my opinion. Not a political act.


      • BM says:

        But that’s just the point, Yalensis – the likes of Soros and Gates et al who are the causal force behind this movement specifically want to use it as a political act, with nothing to do with the real needs of the persons involved. The main motivation for pushing these “gender” things to such absurd extremes is to destroy the structure of society, destroy the family, destroy culture, destroy morality, so that people are lost and have no bearings, and just blindly follow the “sublime leaders”. It has nothing to do with individual people, nothing to do with civil rights, it is a mechanism for the elites to achieve total slavery of the masses, nothing more. (And with the free bonus of reducing population).

        I strongly recomend you read all the last 6 or 8 articles by Alastair Crooke on Strategic Culture, he has dealt with these issues with brilliant insight.


        • yalensis says:

          Thanks, BM. I agree with you that the elites are pushing this gender B.S. as a way of confusing people and blurring all other issues. The same way they created Modern Art (I don’t mean Picasso, I mean the really stupid ones) as a means of BBWB (=”Baffling Brains With Bullshit”) and to blur the distinction between “This is good” and “This is not good.” Same deal with so-called Modern Music.

          As for reducing population, I have often found myself debating against people who present the notion that “promoting gay agenda” would reduce the poulation of the planet. I have not seen any scientific data that the world’s population is decreasing due to increased homosexuality. Quite the contrary. With scientific advancements and humans so obsessed about fertility, everybody on the planet could suddenly turn gay, and yet they would still have tons of children (through one means or another). For example, just about every lesbian couple still has kids; and so do many male homosexual couples. How they get them is another story, but they still get them somehow. (Hint: fertility science.)

          I agree with you that the elites want to decrease the human population, but if they picked homosexuality as a way of doing that, then they are sorely mistaken; it will not even make a dent. The best way to reduce human population is via plagues. But I suspect they have already figured that out…


    • the pair says:

      well said. most legit gender critical concerns come from the (actual and not neoliberal identity fetishist) left and also point to it as a symptom and not the disease. that distinction belongs to the individualism and malignant narcissism that are distinct western characteristics.

      “trans women are women” is just the “micro” while “we love freedom and putin is hitler and ukraine is stroming moscow right now” is the macro. pure self centered delusions forced on others. just ask germany.


  8. Jean Meslier says:

    I don’t comment often, but once again, I want to underline the amazing quality of your posts. It nearly brought tears to my eyes reading a Russian expressing thoughts so similar to mine, in such a graceful way.

    I already appreciated the old Putin, but I like the new, anti anglo imperialist one better, and, as a non Russian, I don’t hold his early alliance with Yeltsin against him. As you said, first, he was small fry, and then, his association with Yeltsin became indispensable to get to power. It’s probably the only thing Yeltsin handled correctly : his succession. I always wondered, did he realize, under a drunken haze, and tried to redeem himself a little bit, or did he simply not care and appointed Vladimir Vladimirovich for some stupid reason.

    Anyway, what Putin accomplished for Russia (and the world) in 20 years, I seriously doubt someone else could have. If courting Yeltsin had to be the mean to the end, so be it.

    As for the gay issue, I share your opinion exactly.

    Of course we all know that LGBT activism is completely infiltrated and lead by western elites (the test is simple : if mainstream media promotes them, then it’s bad), and they are not only useful as a NATO tool; they were, first and foremost useful against the western (real) left. By emphasizing and dissociating smaller, individual struggles (LGBT rights, feminism, anti-racism…) away from the bigger struggle which encompasses them all : the class struggle (which for me is synonym of anti-imperialism), western oligarchs were able to nicely divide the European political left and render it toothless (in the best case) or even servile (in the worst and more common case).

    Nowadays if you try to put the focus away from these individual struggles (not saying OFC that they’re not right in their own ways), to shift it to the big picture, you’re labeled a patriarchal Stalinist (badges I have begun to wear with pride) – a classic and frustratingly well done case of “divide ut impera”.

    That being said, the attacks against gay people per se (not gay activism) that I sometime read in some Russian bloggers pieces are wrong, and worse, they are stupid, because they play directly in the western elites handbook, who can then use their media to further demonize the “villainous gay slaughtering” Russia and Russians and to further de-legitimize Russia’s western supporter as accomplices of the gay genocide.

    One can hate Anglo-Saxon imperialism, NATO and all the tools they use (including gay activism or feminism), want to see them stomped into the ground, but still not want to see their gay friends suffer or be cast out (yes, I have gay friends, many of them, and they are, on the whole, mostly anti-imperialists).

    Therefore, I can only agree with your assessment : despite the respect I’ve got for Putin, he shouldn’t have played the cheap genders card, which, given what I think of the intelligence of the man, I’m really not sure he himself believes.

    But apart from that, what an awesome speech !

    Just for the anecdote, how do you know that Lenin is the man he hates most and that he never read him ?

    Thanks again, Yalensis, for your great posts. Sincerely hope Russia will win the war. They probably don’t know it or don’t see it that way, but as they did 80 years ago, the brave Russian soldiers are fighting for the sake of us all.


    • John Thurloe says:

      I believe you and Yalensis are, somewhat reflexively, misjudging Putin on the transgender issue. I believe, with you, that Putin introduced this ‘card’ to sharpen the line of cultural difference between the rival camps. He consolidates his public and wins admirers abroad. But through this agency Putin signals his resistance to the gamut of western ‘identitarian’ movements. Because they divide the population apart on emotional cleavages. And Putin wants to strengthen forces that unify. So, he leans to ‘class’. Maybe there is a little Lenin Angel at one ear.

      The legacy rights issues Putin favours – women’s rights, national, ethnic and religious rights. These axes exist across Russia and so deserve respect. But the Identity movements are parasitic rackets that use use social media to line their pockets. In the wake of the SCOTUS abortion ruling note how small and few the ‘liberal’ street protests were. This lot can’t put boots in the street. In Canada, trucker and motorcyclists made kinetic their opposition to the Trudeau government about Covid. I didn’t see any public gatherings of the hoi polloi demanding harsher lockdowns. Haven’t seen any Go Ukies! demos either.

      There is no organized power behind the transgender movement. They have no muscle. It’s a marketing stunt. And, it will run out of gas. And soon. Like the “leaders” of the BLM who turned out to be just looting the operation.


      • yalensis says:

        Thanks for your intelligent comments, John. I agree with you that the transgender issue is a nothing-burger, and has no real meat behind it, not like the actual “legacy” issues of ethnic and women’s rights. I personally have no issue with adults getting surgery and switching genders, if they wish to do so, and have the financial means. To me, it seems like just a form of plastic surgery. I mean, I personally experience a certain unconscious bias and horror when I see images of transgender people; but no more than, say, seeing people get tattoos or piercings. Which also fill me with horror. (I am very squeamish and easily horrified.)

        Obviously, it’s insane that the NATO lizard-brains use nonsense like this to create wedge issues that blur the actual issues of class, ethnicity, and actual gender issues like the oppression of women, etc. At one time the UN was supposed to deal with these issues of actual oppression. There are actual issues out there, like little girls being genitally mutilated (clitorectomy), that sort of thing. Which is completely different from “gender identity issues” promoted by NATO.
        I mean, it’s complicated, but also rather simple, when you look at it in a certain way (as legacy Marxists do).
        Speaking of which, legacy Marxists deal with the homosexual issue as a sidebar of the women’s lib issue.


        • John Thurloe says:

          It’s none of my business what you do. It’s none of the state’s business either. So, if the state’s pushing pronouns on me I’m agin it. No offense, but fuck right off. See you in the streets buddy.


    • yalensis says:

      Thank you, Jean! I really appreciate your comment, I am happy to have you as a reader and commenter; and I think you get the complexities of the dialectic.
      Please comment more, you obviously have some interesting things to say.


    • S Brennan says:

      Jean; most excellent comment !


  9. The Inimitable NEET says:

    Both RT and have reported statements from the Russian Defense Ministry reporting that the defensive garrison at Liman has retreated to more advantageous defensive lines to avoid being encircled.

    Where these defensive lines are, I’m not quite sure. Yesterday a report indicated that 4 BTGs (although they are referred to as “combat tactical groups” in the report) of the 58th Army were being sent to reinforce their position, backed by aircraft using unguided air munitions such as the FAB-500 and 3000.


  10. The Inimitable NEET says:

    According to the Russian Defense Ministry, the garrison at Liman has retreated back to defensive positions to avoid encirclement.

    Yuri Kotenok, a war correspondent, stated that 4 “combat tactical groups” (I’m assuming this means BTGs?) from the 58th Army were en route to reinforce the garrison at Liman, backed up by air forces using nonguided munitions such as the FAB-500 and 3000. This was reported yesterday. Was there any more news on where they were initially grouped, or which defensive lines the Liman garrison retreated back to, on Russian websites?


    • yalensis says:

      Hello, NEET, I have been following this story closely all day.

      I plan to do a post on the Liman sitrep tomorrow, having compiled the latest news. Wait till you hear what Kadyrov has to say, this will turn your hair white.

      But briefly, yes, it is said that the Russian force of 500-1000 men was forced to withdraw eastward, in order to prevent encirclement and capture.
      Some reinforcements arrived in time, but only to help their comrades withdraw, not enough to actually push the Ukrainians back.
      The main problem as from the beginning is: PUTIN WENT TO WAR WITHOUT PUTTING ENOUGH MEN ON THE JOB! ARGGGG!

      In conclusion, this is a tactical defeat for Russia, let’s call a spade a spade.
      But certainly preferable to encirclement and capture.
      It’s not the end of the world though. I’m trying to remember the name of that pop song from the 1980’s, “Desperate but not Serious…”

      Anyhow, stay tuned, and tomorrow we will have very nice discussion and analysis. Sleep well!


      • yalensis says:

        P.S. sorry, I almost forgot: BTG is “Battalion Tactical Group”, this is a Russian type formation which includes a little bit of everything (infantry, tanks, artillery, drones) all within one battalion. Like a death-delivering capsule.


      • The Inimitable NEET says:

        Sorry about the double post. It took a lot longer than expected for the first post to show up, so I thought it simply didn’t register.


        • yalensis says:

          Yeah, your comment ended up in the spam filter for some reason, and when I logged on to check my blog I saw it there and fished it out. This issue keeps coming up because wordpress will randomly just throw a comment into the spam filter, I have no idea why. I am very sorry for the inconvenience. I know the impulse is to just keep clicking on “send” in the hopes that it will finally go, LOL!
          You never need to worry that your comment was blocked or anything like that, it’s not my doing. This goes for all my readers: If you post a comment and don’t see it right away, you just need to be patient: I will see it and rescue it eventually! (LOL)


  11. the pair says:

    the english version since some ISPs (or some other neo-stasi idiots) are blocking it.

    searched for “gay, trans, lgbt, homo and gender” and just saw the one paragraph mentioning multiple “genders”. seemed like a typical science-based view of an objectively delusion trend. other than replacing “gender” with “sex” i’d say it’s mild for a conservative president of a heavily orthodox christian country. it’s also something i – as one of the most pro-gay hets you’ll ever meet – would agree with if he worded it better.

    he’s actually making points (e.g. his critique of colonialism and hegemony) that are common on the left. you don’t need to be a dumbass homphobe who literally adheres to the moronic “gays are mentally ill” view (the saker, as mentioned above) to see the entitled narcissism at the heart of trans ideology just like you don’t need to be a marxist to recognize class conflict is out of control on every level from local to global. maybe he’s just pulling a barry goldwater and realizing a lot of his calcified and primitive right wing views don’t work in the real world. it’s like the imaginary beast people call “maga socialists”: a sign that boomer-style “left/right” divide and conquer isn’t viable anymore.


    • yalensis says:

      I think where the Westie “gay movement” went wrong was to transform it from a “please be tolerant to me as a person” thing to, like you say, just another “entitled narcissist” woke thing. In other words, crudely speaking, they just went too far!

      From the classical Marxist point of view (which I think is more sensible), the dividing lines go something like this:
      -The main dividing line between human beings is the class line; hence the class struggle.
      -In some cultures there may also be a caste and/or ethnic distinction within each class, which complicates matters, but, hey, reality is complicated.
      -The women’s lib thing, on the one hand, is somewhat more general than the class struggle per se, but radical feminists were wrong to pose it as a “man vs woman” thing. Classical Marxists fought for women’s rights as part of the class struggle (i.e., they only really cared about working women, not bourgeois women), and formed “ancillary” women’s organizations, which were ancillary to the vanguard party itself. For example, there would be a Communist Party representing the proletariat as a whole, and then there would be an ancillary women’s league type thing which focused on the specific issues and needs of women and children.
      -Later, when gay rights came along, traditional Marxists could either (a) reject homosexuality as a bourgeois deviation; or, more productively (b) fold homosexual rights into the women’s rights ancillaries. Which meant, in essence, agitating for more toleration of individual humans within the overall struggle for the proletarian dictatorship. Which might mean something like calling for rights of civil union, maybe gay marriage (although that might be a bridge too far), right to adopt children, etc.

      That’s how I understand it.


  12. stephentjohnson says:

    Yeah, it may be that the VVP hostility to Ilyich is based on the fact that they have fairly similar circumstances. Both are fending off hostile foreign attacks on a variety of fronts, albeit Lenin faced a much more challenging circumstance, but in both cases, they were engaged in a global struggle (which Uncle Joe Stalin, for instance, was not so much, Communism in one country & whatnot)
    I dunno, just a thought.
    As to the whole gender identity thing, the tricky thing seems to be managing something livable between Gay=BAD and the kind of in-your-face over-the-top stuff we seem to be getting in the collective west. The state has no business in the bedrooms of consenting adults, but their hijinks don’t necessarily need to be shared with the rest of us, everywhere we go.


    • yalensis says:

      Totally agree with you on the gay issue. I have always felt that people should comport themselves modestly in public and not flounce around wearing open-at-the-back orgies pants to work. Just as a random example.

      On the Lenin issue, that is a very interesting thought, that Putin’s antipathy to Lenin might be the result of psychological similarity or anti-projection. Something emotionally complicated like that, which would require the services of a psychiatrist. Or it could be just simple anti-communism. I find it interesting that Putin does not hate Stalin as much as he hates Lenin, but then I think I understand the reason for that: Stalin represents the continuity of Russian statehood, whereas Lenin was indeed a true internationalist. In all honesty, Lenin didn’t give a fig about Russia, he only started loving Russia after it became the capital of the world proletariat.

      Liked by 1 person

      • BM says:

        In all honesty, Lenin didn’t give a fig about Russia, he only started loving Russia after it became the capital of the world proletariat.

        intuitively seems to put the finger on it.

        No need to postulate any complex pyschological issues, that is enough on its own.

        Liked by 1 person

      • stephentjohnson says:

        Yes! That Nationalist / Internationalist dichotomy is a big deal, I expect. It does seem clear Lenin viewed Russia as disposable in the cause of world revolution, where I think the inimitable Mr.P views Russian culture as both quite distinct and very important.


        • yalensis says:

          True. Although, once again, reality was more complex, in its own way. I have studied Lenin quite a lot, he was much deeper into the Russian world and Russian culture than even he knew, possibly. Lenin was steeped in Russian literature and poetry, for example; and, in the final analysis he had a very Russian mindset.
          Another major difference between Lenin and Putin is that the latter is religious; whereas the former was quite the opposite. There are people out there who believe that the “Russian world” is based on Orthodox Christianity. To them, anybody who is not a believer is not a real Russian. I obviously do not agree with that point of view. In fact, I personally wish that Russia had rejected Christianity and just retained its native pagan beliefs.

          (Not that I am a pagan myself, I don’t believe in any supernatural beings, I just happen to think that paganism is more inclusive and less doctrinaire than monotheism.)


  13. Did you ever read “A People’s History of the United States” by Howard Zinn? A look at the U.S. through a negative lens, kinda like if Noam Chomsky wrote an American history text. What I’ve read of Putin’s speech so far (Gilbert Doctorow’s summation; I’ll click through to the translation link that Michaeldroy provided to get the whole thing) sounds a lot like Zinn when he talks about the Anglo-Saxons, slavery, the U.S. “law of the fist” etc. Maybe Putin was Zinnin’ instead of Lenin!

    As for the anti-gay thing, it’s prejudice fer sher, and sex-related prejudice is a deep-seated thing. When someone thinks “Ooh — that’s ICKY!” about something sexual, it makes for a strong emotional trigger. Paedophilia (as it’s spelt here) gets similar reactions. Amongst mental patients, when they’re having derogatory auditory hallucinations (the technical phrase for “voices inside their head that are calling them names”) it’s frequently “You’re a paedo” or “you’re a poofter.” Which sometimes makes them want to kill themselves, or they front up to strangers on the streets to yell “Why did you call me that?!?” Not saying that Putin is crazy — that gets said plenty enough in the Westie media — but the dislike for what people think is sexually perverted can blind them from taking a cooler, non-emotional stance.

    Seems to be common amongst the Russo blogosphere, as Deschutes noted. I reckon that if you’re SURE of your manliness, then you shouldn’t be bothered by gay males. They’re not competing with you for women! You might be squicked out that they’re going to come on to you, but they’ll go away when you say “Not interested.” (And you’ll have some empathy for what it’s like to be a woman putting up with horn-dog guys. Which is also why lots of women like gay guys, because they know those blokes won’t be trying to get into their pants. Unless the pants fit, and maybe they could try them on…) It’s LESBIANS that you should object to! Because they’re out of reach for us guys. Putin shoulda slagged them off, eh?


    • yalensis says:

      Tee hee! (Great song, by the way, I like the beat…)

      That’s a great point about gay men taking themselves out of contention, which means fewer guys competing for the available pool of women.
      Lesbians is not so much an issue, I think, because their numbers are proportionately smaller within the cohort, and so do not affect the general competition among men , for girls.
      Also, many lesbians are bi-sexual and can easily switch back and forth. They could have a college romance with their roommate, and then just suddenly switch and get married to a man.

      On the other hand, lesbians are just as likely as hetero women to want to have babies. Which means they still need somebody’s sperm. So, there is still some lucky guy out there who becomes a dad, even if he doesn’t know it!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s